Daschle's healthcare push

Mike Allen, who I've realized -- after losing the argument to him about Hillary -- is always right, has a riff this morning on the direction of healthcare reform that is very much worth reading:

Daschle, who was developing a passion for health care, did not want to be HHS secretary – or at least was lukewarm on it – unless he was given a health-czar role. HHS is a monstrous bureaucracy (NIH, FDA, etc.) and is not a place to effect health-care reform. Although you won’t hear them making the analogy, Obama aides want to use the Cheney-energy-task-force model of using the White House as a place to hash out issues before they got to the Hill and Cabinet. So the Office of Health Reform will be like a special-projects arm of the White House. By adding that role to his spot in the Cabinet, HE’S ALIGNING THE PLANETS TO ALLOW HIM TO PUSH FOR SIGNIFICANT CHANGES – TO TRY FOR HEALTH REFORM MORE AMBITIOUS THAN PEOPLE ARE THINKING. A few other factors will help with that:

1) One of the transition health advisers is Neera Tanden, policy director of the HRC campaign, who brings with her the health care lessons from the Clinton White House.

2) Senator Kennedy will push hard for this as an addition to his legacy. That will be a powerful chip that will clear hurdles.

3) Daschle’s chief of staff will be Mark Childress, whose bio says: “From 2000 to 2005, Mark served as Chief Counsel and Policy Director for then-U.S. Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle. His experience in Congress also includes serving as General Counsel to the Senate Labor Committee under Chairman Edward M. Kennedy.” SO DASCHLE IS GOING WITH A PROVEN MANAGER HE TRUSTS, IN ANOTHER SIGN HE IS GEARING THE AGENCY TOWARD LEGISLATIVE CHANGE AS OPPOSED TO BUREAUCRATIC CHANGE.

4) Senator Kennedy learned from “No Child Left Behind” that the funding should have been included – the administration got the dessert without the spinach. So this time will additional coverage – the palatable, agreed-upon part, be accompanied by cost containment, the difficult, contentious side of it?